Which One-Ils or LPV?

Some years ago, I was flying with a pilot in his Cessna. He was instrument rated, while I was working on mine. I watched him enjoying the two perfectly centered needles (old-style CDIs) accompanying the six-pack panel while flying to a VOR at 6000 feet. He remarked with a sigh of contentment, Now this is the way to fly. It sure was, especially for me, when I was building time in budget-friendly trainers where dual (working) CDIs was a luxury.

Elaine Kauh

Monday, January 21, 2019 at 12:00 AM ET

Verified

Key Takeaways:

Pilot preferences for navigation evolve, shifting from traditional VOR/CDI systems to modern GPS/HSI, often valuing the simplicity of RNAV (LPV) approaches.
While RNAV (LPV) approaches typically offer simpler flight planning and execution, they often come with higher minimums compared to traditional ILS approaches.
The article demonstrates that in challenging weather, the specific approach procedure and its minimums, rather than advanced cockpit technology, are the ultimate determinants of a successful landing.

See a mistake? Contact us.

Some years ago, I was flying with a pilot in his Cessna. He was instrument rated, while I was working on mine. I watched him enjoying the two perfectly centered needles (old-style CDIs) accompanying the six-pack panel while flying to a VOR at 6000 feet. He remarked with a sigh of contentment, “Now this is the way to fly.” It sure was, especially for me, when I was building time in budget-friendly trainers where dual (working) CDIs was a luxury.

A couple years later, I was flying with this same pilot in his newer, faster Mooney, equipped with a nice HSI coupled to a Garmin GNS 430. While en route to an RNAV fix, he remarked with that same sigh of contentment, “Now this is the way to fly.” Funny how our likes and dislikes can swap ends. This brings us to our latest Clinic: Which approach are you gonna fly?